The rule has no mention of the word deliberate or accidental. You cannot have the excuse of "I didn't mean it" with serious fouls play as he has endangered his opponent, it is reckless and excessive force Greizmann fall foul of the endangering an opponent clause. There is no accidental excuse in it. BTW at this point I can't believe mane has not been sent off for elbows. He is constantly at it and will get done in Europe some day. You need to view your keita question the same way. Show me a picture of where an opponent is endangered mate
This overhead kick or raising your foot to head height malarkey - could there be a redder herring? Serious foul play is not like offside, where you are or you are not, or like the technology if the ball crosses the line: it's subjective, and the ref's decision. The clue is in the framing of the rule including : SERIOUS FOUL PLAY A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play. From Law 12. So Bale doing an overhead worldie yards from anyone in the CL final (****) is fine: Mane sticking his foot six foot in the air just as Emerson goes to head it is not. There's shades of grey in between, but that is down to the judgement of the ref. Griezman stuck his boot in Bobby's face, and even if intent is questionable (or impact) it's the very definition of the above. A kick to the head by a raised foot at that height COULD endanger an opponent, even if the result is no injury. Same as a two-footed lunge, even if no injury is caused. That's more by luck than judgement. Can it go to bed now?
It's sort of similar ... maybe ... to two players coming together and clashing heads. There's a difference between the two coming together simultaneously and one heading and one not. The former is accidental, the latter could or couldn't be which is where context comes in.
You're not supposed to go into a challenge with your studs showing, that in itself a dangerous play that can warrant a red card. It's impossible not to show studs if your foot is at head height. Only thing left is whether it endangers an opponent; judgement call if there is no contact, if there is contact than you're bang to rights.
The Naby thing is hypothetical mate was saying just imagine a defender blindsiding him on that strike coming in a millisecond late with his foot at its highest point and getting smashed on the follow through in the mush and it resulting in a massive gash (which timing wise is pretty much what happened with Mane he was trying to control the ball not knowing edersons head was enroute) Would he go - even though he was focussed on his strike and someone ran in on him And it is possible So no pic lol Even if there was I wouldn’t have a clue How to get it on here lols I know I am not explaining myself right cause of the answers I am getting Lmao But it doesn’t matter Not looking to change views - I just disagree with everyone lmao (Tbf I know others with my view but not many lols)
No lol Cause the mane one at no point did he see Ederson coming and he was in an area of the pitch where Emerson’s head should not have been And ederson definitely bowed down but yet he got red same incident almost identical that weekend with Swansea not even a free kick This is definitely the topic which hits my button lmao I just can’t resist it lol
then naby gets sent off. I think there's an example of that but i cant recall who. getting the ball is irrelevant to excessive force. say a guy blasts his foot into a ball the keeper is diving on . he'd be called for it too. please log in to view this image in the end mane went high with a boot but could have gone with the head maybe and he's off the ground with a straight leg. Its also excessive force. IMO firmino got off easy as he didn't get cut. please log in to view this image We have an example here. a tragic incident please log in to view this image the poor fella just got his in the wrong area and it crushed the arteries. these are life and death injuries potentially if you get a guy with a bladed boot i nthe wrong place.
Okay I understand that as I keep saying I understand why the red don’t show a picture of a tragic accident and go here look what can happen If someone smashes a volley and it hits someone flat in the face 7 yards away untold damage can occur People have been knocked out cold like that I saw a volley into face and head int metal fence at five a side You can’t rid the game of all these possibilities You just cant So what stop volleys Those injuries can happen from someone volleying a ball anytime From a goalkeeper punching the ball Someone making a back (totally with solid on this - watch replay of how vvd landed 1/2 a foot from a serious injury) I understand he studs up bit but as I have said other situations lead to studs up too I think we are making these decisions on the oooof factor which if is the case is totally down to opinion however no one is really able to put their finger on proving the rule exactly or explaining a difference force keeps coming as a defining part and if force is a define part - lucky or not Grez didn’t go in with force and therefore shouldn’t be punished if he had IF force is the key point. gerrard got sent off for intent once But loads of others haven’t when you can explain why Swansea got away with it and countless others nearly every week (I went through a phase of counting and posting every week when one happened just on high feet next to players alone) When you can post something definitive I will happily listen up to now I have heard or read nothing that changes my thoughts of By the rule (yet unexplained properly) it’s a red But I thought it was harsh as I think he was judged on what might have happened rather than what did if force comes into the mane one is a red and grez wasn’t But it isn’t just force and the rule certainly isn’t fit for purpose as there are so so so so many examples every week where this kind of thing happens and there isn’t even a free kick let alone a red and that is all I am saying
And I'd agree with you on decision making in general especially around the heading and such. We enable people like suarez and kane trying to injure people by not actively signalling its outlawed and you will be off. You are.mixing your drinks on force. Its not exclusively to do with force as the rule is written. The rule states endangering opponent. I can stand still and raise my foot waiting for someone to run into it and I'm endangering someone. Now if you said to me hey keepers are allow smash a knee into anyone the feel like and that's wrong then I'd totally agree. I had a sunday league team mate who didnt just lead with knee for some self protection but put the whole boot straight out and dared anyone to come near. I think keepers are allowed get away with murder. The rule covers a multitude of possible offenses from sticking your boot up or sliding in two footed. It's got 3 mini clauses in there trying to cover everything. I would prefer they break the rules out in detail and deal with head injury. High boots = off and people would stop raising the boot. Elbows etc. Head contact should be reviewed by var. We have massively different standards from a hand off type contact to a full on jump in from the side and smash for elbow into your opponent. Imo yes they could improve the rule but imo it should restful in even less contact allowed
I think we are on common ground I am just the other way round lmao i think I don’t think you can take the dangers out of the game Do I want to see injuries No not at all Not even a little bit I think it’s impossible for the rule to cover the issue satisfactorily I mean proper impossible I think I said this earlier but my daughter was caught by a flailing hand the other day was it dangerous - yes Did she swing her arm massively - yes Blood everywhere Was it intentional- no way Did it hurt my daughter - yes Her entire previously not wobbly tooth came out (If I knew how to do pictures I could show you) It was not even a free kick With what we are discussing the oppo player should have saw red But I don’t think she should Just like I didn’t with Grez However I absolutely think Suarez should have gone - his was nasty and deliberate Just shooting the breeze as you said
Should've sent her to her room for 10mins. But seriously this is where we talk workplace and later life injuries and issues. If I choose to dive of the edge of a pool into the shallow end and break my neck it's my fault. If i am employed and told to jump in head first then it's my employers fault. My employer doesn't want me to break my neck but have taken no care about it. Football is a workplace. Eventually the concussion thing will come in.
Not wanting to prolong the argument, I think that your daughter’s episode provides the key to the issue. If it’s deemed to have been accidental then obviously nothing is done. If however it had been a foul, then the player would have been sent off. Duty of care and all that. Refs have almost no choice if they deem it a foul, accidental injury or not.
Aaargggh You git Lmao I think greez was accidental and no force so no red - that’s what I thought was harsh - I think a yellow would have sufficed- which is what started all this lmao The rule is dangerous play So red I get it But I think it’s wrong You all think I am wrong let’s hope nothing like this happens Sunday you lot are all gits lmao
Haha. But that’s the whole point. It’s either not a foul I.e nothing or a red. They are not allowed to give a yellow in these circumstances.